Let's stop parser Hell

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On 07-Jul-12 13:06, Roman D. Boiko wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 00:45:36 UTC, David Piepgrass wrote:
>> This work on parsers might be a good place for me to dive in. I have
>> an interest in parsers and familiarity with LL, LALR, PEGs, and even
>> Pratt parsers (fun!), but I am still inexperienced.
> ...
>> One thing that has always concerned me about PEGs is that they always
>> say PEGs are slower than traditional two-phase LALR(1) or LL(k)
>> parsers. However, I have never seen any benchmarks. Does anyone know
>> exactly how much performance you lose in an (optimized) PEG compared
>> to an (optimized) LALR/LL parser + LL/regex lexer?
>
> I decided to ask a question about this:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11373644/performance-of-parsers-peg-vs-lalr1-or-llk
>
>
> Don't hesitate to edit it if you would like to clarify some aspect.

I can tell you that they are not slower then one another in principle. 
Quality of implementations trumps every theoretical aspect here. LALR is 
usually fast even if implemented by book but they are hard to optimize 
futher and quite restrictive on "semantic extensions".

Proper CFG parsers all are liner-time anyway.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky